The Art of the Steal

The best way to think about the deal Trump and his son-in-law are offering the Palestinians is to remember that they are real-estate developers.  If you listen closely to Kushner's discussion of his proposal with Ian Bremer, his approach comes to this: the Palestinians aren't in a strong enough position to expect to be treated fairly, whatever thay means.  There are many approaches to deal-making, but many dealers ask for everything their position of leverage allows, and then a bit more. You figure out what the options are for the person on the other side of the table, and offer just one penny more than his next best option. This kind of deal-maker sees it as a zero-sum game.

Of course in the context of human, of which international relations is a subset, considerations of fairness and justice usually constrain the exercise of leverage, and hold players back from demanding everything their position allows.  It is not surprising that Kushner doesn't attempt to explain why his proposal is fair, however, because he is of the zero-sum-game school.

The interesting thing is, the deal-makers who do best in the long term understand that deals that disadvantage one party far more than the other have a nasty way of unravelling as time goes by. In the commercial world, what happens next is litigation. In international relations, it's war.

The Thinking Man's Case for Leave

If you have read (or watched) Captain Corelli's Mandolin, you may be especially interested in Louis de Berniere's op-ed in today's FT -- Why I Believe in Brexit.

the Memory at 3

Today I asked Bennett if he remembered playing car crashes with me in Los Angeles. "No," says he, "It was in Nantucket." Correct.

A Little Liberal, A Little Conservative - Prologue

When all night long, a chap remains
On sentry-go, to chase monotony
He exercises of his brains
Assuming that he's go any

Though never nurtured in the lap of luxury
Yet I admonish you
I am an intellectual chap
And think of things that would astonish you

I often think it comical

Fa la-la-la

Fa la-la-la

How nature always does contrive

Fa la-la-la la-la

That every boy and every gal

That's born into the world alive

Is either a little liberal

Or else a little conservative

Fa la la

These ruminations of private Willis, on "sentry-go" at midnight in Palace Yard, Westminster, open Act II of Gilbert and Sullivan's Iolanthe.

So how does nature contrive that every one of us is either a little liberal or else a little conservative? And can some of us become some of each?

Rudy's Defense

Bill Taylor will testify before the House Intelligence Committee this morning. Rudy Giulini has offered this defense against the Trump impeachment in a WSJ op-ed.  Stripped of the rhetoric, some questions of fact arise:

• "A Ukrainian court ruled in December last year that the National Anti-Corruption Bureau and Ukrainian lawmaker Serhiy Leshchenko interfered in the 2016 election by releasing documents related to Paul Manafort."  

What is the relationship between the NACB and Leschenko? Did they release the Manafort documents separately or together? Why was it illegal to release them? Is there evidence that they did so at the behest of the DNC? 

• "A January 2017 report from Politico implied that the officials released the information to hurt the Trump campaign. The site reported that a Democratic National Committee contractor, Alexandra Chalupa, dug for dirt on Mr. Manafort’s work in Ukraine. This past May, Valeriy Chaly, Ukraine’s ambassador to the U.S., told the Hill’s John Solomon that Ms. Chalupa came to the embassy looking for damaging information on Mr. Manafort. Ms. Chalupa has denied conducting opposition research with Ukrainian officials for the DNC but told Politico that she provided what information she found on Mr. Manafort to 'a lot of journalists.' ”

Does the Politico report say that "officials released the information to hurt the Trump campaaign" at the behest of Ms. Chalupa? On what evidence did Politico base its reporting? Has evidence for this charge been produced by any source other than Politico?
Andriy Derkach, a member of Ukraine’s Parliament, told the press in early October that he had reviewed documents showing that Burisma transferred $900,000 to Rosemont Seneca Partners, a lobbying firm owned by Hunter Biden, and that the money was for lobbying Joe Biden.

• "Andriy Derkach, a member of Ukraine’s Parliament, told the press in early October that he had reviewed documents showing that Burisma transferred $900,000 to Rosemont Seneca Partners, a lobbying firm owned by Hunter Biden, and that the money was for lobbying Joe Biden."

Has any other source confirmed the existence of the documents cited by Derkach? Would it be illegal under Ukrainian or US law for Burisma to pay Biden Jr. to lobby his father?

Without knowing the answers to these questions, there are arguable grounds for the US government to ask the Ukrainian government to investigate, notwithstanding what would be investigated are the activities of Trump's political opponents -- the DNC and Joe Biden. 

But the impeachable offense is this: the Trump administration made clear to Zelinsky that $400 million in US aid was frozen until Zelinsky announced publicly that Ukraine would initiate the investigations demanded by Trump. This is impeachable becauseTrump was allowing his political interests to trump US foreign and national security policy, both of which have been firmly aligned to provide Ukraine with American political and financial support ever since Russia's annexation of Crimea of invasion of the Dongas.

Elizabeth Warren's Medicare Plan reviewed

Here's a good critique of Warren's plan by Jordan Weissman in Slate.  He points out that the "employer medicare contribution" is in effect an head tax on employment, and would cost the employer the same for every employee (since it's calculated as the average amount the employer currently pays for his employees' plans). Starbucks would therefore pay the same amount for the CEO's plan as for the barista's. And if Starbucks adjusts wages to increase or decrease each employee's wage  by the difference between what the employer is currently paying for the employee's plan and the uniform "medicare contribution" amount, the CEO would be a winner and barista would be a loser, assuming Starbucks currently pays more for the CEO's plan than for the barista's.  But this raises the question: to what degree does the amounts employers currently pay vary according to the wage of the employee? If there's very little variation, then switching to the Warren's plan wouldn't change much. 

Equal Time

Here in America, we have the pleasure of giving equal time to Rachel Maddow and Tucker Carlson, whose fireside chat style of delivery to the base is essentially identical, including especially the rhetorical silences.

Last night, Rachel picked apart the various strands of "corruption" that make up the fabric of Ukrainegate, relishing in the tale of Rick Perry's travel to Kiev to deliver the message, on behalf of Trump that Zelinsky must drain the swamp of corruption in his country, and then suggesting that a couple of Perry's donor friends should be given fat advisory contracts by a Ukraining energy company (which they promptly were) .
On comes Tucker. He was not very nice (and interrupted every 7 seconds) to the liberal who pushed back when Tucker put on a show of incredulity that the Democrats couldn't understand that stop and frisk is the only effective way to control guns in America. But then he brought on the author and pastor John MacArthur who explained why Elizabeth Warren is Hillary Clinton in sheep's clothing, because she is secretly courting the very Wall Street titans she villifies on the campaign trail.

Homework: check out MacArthur's sources for Elizabeth's cozying up. And check out the statistics on how many of Bloomberg's stop-and-frisk incarcerations were for marijuana.